See Dr. Caves Primitive Chr. Chap. 6. Part 1. and Cap. 9. always paid such an extraordinary Respect and Veneration to the public places of Gods Worship both at their first Entrance into and all the while they continued in them And for this reason 't is that the Public place of Gods Worship is in Scripture set forth by so many honourable Names and Titles such as are the Temple the Tabernacle and the Sanctuary of the Lord the Habitation of his Holiness and the place where his Honor dwelleth the House of Prayer and the Church of God All which things put together do strongly prove that there is at least a Relative holiness in the Church above other places and that God is more immediately present there to hear the Petitions and to answer the Prayers of his humble Supplicants and to give a due vertue and efficacy to his blessed Sacraments But lest I should be thought to be singular in this opinion I shall beg leave for the satisfaction of every unbyass'd Reader to transcribe the words of a pious and learned Bishop of this Church Dr. Sparrow Bp. of Norwich in his Rationalé on the Com. Prayer p. 371. who speaking of the Dedication of Churches and Chappels to Service of God tells us That our Prayers and public Services are most readily accepted in such holy separate places and he proves it from 2 Chron. 7 15. Now mine Eyes shall be open and mine Ears attent to the Prayer in this place which promise of acceptance belongs to any other place so dedicated and consecrated to Gods holy Worship and Service as was this house which Solomon built for the reason which God gives of his gracious readiness to hear the Prayer of that holy place is in general this v. 16. For now have I chosen and sanctified this House that my Name might be there for ever Now that this house is dedicated and solemnly set apart by religious Rites and Prayers to my Service A quatenus ad omne valet consequentia now I have chosen it for mine And a little farther he adds By the like reason whatsoever other place shall be dedicated to him shall have the Eyes of God open and his Ear attentive to the Prayer of it And God Almighty promises as much Exod. 20.24 In all places where I record my Name I will come unto thee and bless thee that is in all places dedicated to me and my Service and so made mine And a little farther p. 385. are these very remarkable words The Church is the most convenient place for the service of God and adds much to the beauty of holiness And he that should neglect that decency and despising the Church should offer up the Publick Worship of which we have already proved Baptism to be a most solemn part in Private He would by so doing sin against that law of God that says Cursed be he that having a better Lamb in his flock offers up to God a worse Mal. 1.14 For God Almighty must be served with the best we have otherwise we despise him He that can have a Church and will offer up the holy Service in a worse place Let him fear that Curse This I think is home to the purpose and an evident proof of my former assertion from the plainest Texts of Scripture and if it seem severely spoken let it be remembred that 't is substantially proved and that they are not mine but a Reverend Prelates words of this Church whose name and authority ought to be had in veneration by all its members And would to God those persons who contend so earnestly for Baptizing their Children at home without any just necessity would consider seriously whether This be not very like that sin of despising the Church of God which St. Paul so severely condemned in the Corinthians 1 Ep. 11.22 and not only making their own houses equal to the Church but in this respect preferring them before it Upon the whole of this first Argument I think it is undeniably proved that Baptism is not of a Private but of a Publick Nature and that the Church is the fittest and most decent place for the Administration of it And therefore that to administer it in Private houses is both contrary to the Nature and Designs of Baptism and a plain transgression of this precept of St. Paul Let all things be done decently and in order Secondly To Administer Baptism in Private houses is contrary to the constant practice of the Catholick Christian Church in all ages For the proof of this I cannot take a better Method than to give you the words of the judicious and learned Dr. Cave Prim. Christ c. 10. p. 311. pars pr. who speaking of the place where Baptism was anciently administred tells us That 't was always as near as might be to the place of their Public Assemblies and that 't was seldom performed without the presence of the Congregation and that for very good reasons both as 't is a principal act of Religious Worship and as 't is the initiating of Persons into the Church which therefore ought to be as Public as possible that so the whole Congregation might be Spectators and Witnesses of that Profession and Engagement which the baptized Person then took upon him And this the Primitive Christians so zealously kept to that the Trullan Council Can. 59. allows not Baptism to be administred in a Private Chappel or Oratory but only in the Public Churches punishing the Persons offending in this particular with Deposition from their Office if they were Clergy-men and if Laity with Excommunication For this reason they had their Baptisteria or Fonts built at first in some place near the Church then in the Church * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Naz. Porch till afterward they were placed in the Church itself This I think is very plain and I have chose to transcribe the very words of this reverend and learned Person because of his great Name and Eminency in the Church especially as a faithful and diligent Inquirer into the Customs and Practice of Antiquity of which this Book called Primitive Christianity is amongst the rest One illustrious proof I was once thinking to add some other Observations of my own relating to this affair But I since find this particular so largely and unanswerably proved by an ingenious Author who has lately writ on this very subject Mr. Arwaker's Dissuasive from Baptizing Children in Private printed 1687. that because I can add nothing new I think it better to refer the inquisitive Reader thither The Book is licensed by the Arch-Bishop and dedicated to the Bishop of London Of both whose pious Endeavours to reform this Vnlawful Custom the Author gives us an account in his Epistle Dedicatory which I observe for this reason that the Reader may know that what I here write against has been condemned by the Metropolitan and the whole Church of England in general Whoever reads this little book
the Toleration is for Dissenters not for us We have still blessed be God the same Church the same Public Liturgy the same Articles Canons and Constitutions established by the Law of the Land by several Acts of Parliament which stand yet unrepealed And therefore our Obedience is still as due to those Laws as ever Nor can the Toleration with any shew of Modesty or Reason be thought to excuse us so long as we own our selves Members of the Church of England as of a good and an Orthodox Communion But suppose I were concern'd with a professed Dissenter yet I might justly answer 2. That all that any Toleration in the World does or can do is to excuse only from the Penalty not at all from the fault of Disobedience to the Laws and Orders of an Established Lawful Communion it gives a Liberty of Impunity 't is true whether justly or unjustly I will not now dispute but not of justification it takes away the civil Punishment but it can never take away the Sin of Non-conformity or Disobedience my reason for it is this because these are Sins forbidden by the plain Laws of God which no Laws of Man can alter or dispense with For every Orthodox and lawfully constituted Church has a full power from Christs own Institution to make Canons and Constitutions for its own Regulation for the security and preservation of its own Peace and good Order And this lays a sufficient Obligation on all Christians to obey those Laws tho there should be no Civil Authority to back and enforce them The Church considered as a Church is a distinct body and has a distinct Government inherent in it self without any regard had to the State And consequently all disobedience to the Lawful Commands of the Church is an Evil in it self Morally and intrinsecally sinful and therefore can never be altered by any Humane Dispensation or Toleration Hence we find the Primitive Christians decrying Schism and branding it with the most odious Characters before there were any Civil Laws in Defence of Christianity nay when all the Civil Laws were against it as well before the Empire became Christian and again in the intervals of Persecution as when Christianity was Established by a Law So the Donatists were accounted Schismaticks by the Primitive Christians as well under those temporal Princes that favoured as under those who persecuted them Arianism was condemned as well under Constantius and Valens who countenanced as under Constantine who opposed it so that tho a Toleration do take away Civil Penalties yet the Laws of God and of Scripture that require Vnity Communion and Compliance with an established Orthodox Church do stand still uncancell'd and in as much force as ever If any one doubt the truth of this Let him only read the ingenious Mr Norris his Charge of Schism continued and if he can fairly answer what that learned Author there urges in defence of this Assertion I promise him I will instantly give up the Cause and become his Proselite There is a passage in the learned Dr. Stillingfleets Sermon of the Mischief of Separation so apposite to our present Argument that I cannot forbear setting it down 'T is Page the 45th in these words Let us who continue in the Communion of our Church walk by the same Rule and mind the same things While we keep to one Rule all People know what it is to be of our Church if men set up their own Fancies above the Rule they charge it with Imperfection if they do not obey the Rule they make themselves wiser than those that made it It hath not been the Doctrine or Rules of our Church which have ever given advantage to the Enemies of it but the Indiscretion of some in going beyond them and the Inconstancy of others in not holding to them This being the Judgment and Opinion of so great a man and of so pacifick a Temper deserves a serious Consideration by all who wish well to the Church of England 4. The Baptizing Children in Private by the Public Form is contrary to every Ministers solemn Promises and Subscriptions For the 36th Canon of our Church Every Minister is required both at his receiving of Orders and at his Admission to any Benefice or Living to make this Promise and to subscribe it with his own hand in these very words viz. That he himself will use the Form prescribed in the book of Common Prayer both in Public Prayer and in the Administration of the Sacraments and none other And now I appeal to the sense of all the world whether that Minister who uses that Form of Public Baptism in Private Houses which is prescribed to be used in the Church does not break this Promise And whether he who does not in Private houses use the Form Prescribed for that purpose does not do the same Does such a Man use the Form prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer and none other as he promised and subscribed Perhaps it will be said that he uses the same words tho in a different Place But still I answer That this is not the Form prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer The Form prescribed is perfectly of Another Nature The Church has composed two Forms for Baptism of Infants the one for the Church the other for Private houses the one for ordinary and common cases the other for the extraordinary cases of sickness and necessity Now he that confounds these two Offices which the Church has made distinct and wholy omitting that Form which is designed for Private Vses that in Private which is commanded to be used in Public that Person does not use the Form prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer and none other but perfectly another than what is commanded If any one in the World can deny this assertion or without Tricks and Fallacies fairly justify this Practice from Breach of Promise I will never more trust my discursive Faculty so long as I live can any thing be more indisputably clear If to doubt in this case be not to seek Knots in a Bulrush I know not what is This Argument very nearly concerns us of the Clergy and we should all do well seriously to consider it and the rather because our own undue Compliances in this respect are made use of by the Laity as the greatest Argument for the Continuance of this Vnlawful Practice But if the most solemn Promises and repeated Subscriptions signify any thing we are all certainly bound to do our utmost for the reforming of this unhappy Custom in doing of which there would be far less difficulty than now there is were we our selves Vnanimous in the Attempt were we All resolved to be just to our own Engagements and would not undermine each others Endeavours by our contrary Practices 'T is plain we are not left at Liberty to do as we please in this case we are bound by Laws by Promises and Subscriptions And when the Laity know and consider this I cannot but
from the 5th to the 16th page will find it undeniably proved that St. John and the Apostles themselves baptized in Public That both the Greek and Latin Churches do the same at this day and that several of the Antient Fathers Justini Martyr Tertullian St. Athanasius Greg. Nazianzen St. Ambrose and Chrysostom St. Cyril and most learned Writers of the Primitive Church whose Names are in the Margin do all contend for Baptism in Public He will find it proved that the Baptizing in Private houses Concilium Constans Meldense Vernense Cassander Hospinian Chamier Vasquez c. Rel. Assemblys p. 294. has been often condemned and prohibited by whole Councils of Bishops And all this abundantly strengthned by the Testimonies of several other learned Writers Men of great esteem in their times After all which I presume we may very justly conclude with the learned Dr. Sherlock That the Primitive Christians always administred Baptism in Public places and in the presence of the Congregation and never that the Custom thus continued in all the following Ages Now the force of this Argument amounts to this That in all cases not positively determined by the Scripture The Practice of the Primitive Church is the surest way for us to understand the Mind of Christ and his Apostles For we cannot but think that those who convers'd with the Apostles and with the Apostolical men of the next ages are the safest guides for us to be directed by who live so remote from those times The Authority of Antient and Vniversal Tradition has always been esteemed sacred and venerable and whatever men may think now yet to contradict the concurring Testimony and Practice of the Universal Church was heretofore always thought one of the greatest Sins and Follies that a Man could be guilty of The Fathers themselves do often confute Heretics of their times from prescription or the constant Traditionary Faith and Practice of the Church For tho we do not make Tradition to be a Primary and Infallible Rule as the Holy Oracles are Yet where the thing is doubtful or disputable where the Scripture is silent there certainly the received Practice of the ancient Vniversal Church is the surest guide for us to follow There is an Obligation upon us of the present times to conform as much as may be to the Practice of the Universal Church and to avoid Novelty and Singularity in all things relating to the Worship of God And therefore when we have so many plain Testimonies of Antiquity for baptizing in Public and can find no one Church in the Christian World that ever practised otherwise when we have so many Ancient Fathers Councils and learned Writers condemning Private Baptism and pleading for that which is Public and not any one single Author produced of a contrary persuasion There is certainly so much respect due to this Vnanimous Consent of all our Pious Ancestors as proves it to be very rude indecent and immodest for us of the present age to contradict the general sense of Christianity to affront and condemn the Holy Catholic Church of Christ by our contrary Practices and to think our selves wiser than all the Christians that went before us who for 1600 years together have always Baptized in Public and no doubt for good reasons Thirdly The Administration of Baptism in Private houses without just Necessity and with the Public Form is contrary to the Express Laws and Rubrick of our own National established Church of England This is so plain and undeniable a Truth that a modest man would think it needless to go about to prove it to any man who has got a Common-prayer book and is but able to read the Rubrick without coloured Spectacles which is as plain and express in this particular as words can make it For 1st The very appointing of two distinct Offices and the calling one of them by the Name of Public and the other by the Name of Private Baptism is a plain demonstration of the mind of the Church in this respect For to what purpose has the Church composed a distinct Form of Baptism for cases of sickness and extreme Necessity if she had ever thought that the Public Form might have been then used as well But let us examine the several Titles of those two Offices And the first we find is called The Public Baptism of Infants to be used in the Church Now the very word Public proves that 't was never intended to be used Privately And the addition of that Clause To be used in the Church is an unanswerable Argument that it ought not to be used in Private houses But let us proceed from the Title to the Rubrick for Public Baptism And the first thing we meet with is This. The People are to be admonished that 't is most convenient that Baptism should not be administred but upon Sundays and other Holy-days when the most number of People come together And this our Church requires for two very good reasons which immediately follow both which reasons conclude strongly for Public and against Private Baptism The first is That the Congregation there present may testify the receiving of them that be newly baptized into the number of Christs Church The second is That by the Baptism of the Infant in the Church every Person present may be put in mind of his own solemn vow and profession made to God in his own Baptism To this purpose the learned Dr. Comber tells us That Infants ougut to be brought to the Church Discourse upon the whole Common Prayer p. 338. that there may be many Witnesses of this solemn act and that others may be put in mind of their Vow as also because they may be admitted Members of our Religious Assemblies in the proper place And he that has a mind to see farther how much Public Baptism tends to the Edification of the Church Let him read Dr. Sherlocks Rel. Assemblies p. 293. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and consider withal how the Custom of Baptizing in Private can be reconciled with that Precept of St. Paul 1 Cor. 14.26 Let all things be done to Edifying that is in all acts of Public Worship let every thing be so performed as may tend most to the benefit and advantage of others Dr. Hammond in locum and Dr. Beveridge his Sermons on this Text. which is the Paraphrase of a very learned man on the words In the third Section or Paragraph of the Rubrick before Public Baptism The Godfathers and Godmothers and the People with the Children are required to be ready at the Font Now I hope this may pass for a plain Command for the bringing of Children to the Church for where else is the Font Are there any in Private houses Or how can Children be brought to the Font if they are not first brought to the Church where alone the Font is placed But this is not all the time is also specified as well as the Place The Children are to be